I'm not sure why you think single is a positive if you're trying to save. It's far more cost effective to be married to another high-income earner.
Living in a cheap location is also not everyone's dream. It would be life changing for me to retire to Costa Rica, but it would not be a positive change. I live in a pretty expensive city (Seattle) because I like it here.
If X, says nothing about if not X. Dual income no kids @ 200+k can be a great way to save a lot of money. But, you have far less control over your spouses spending and willingness to relocate.
Also, even if you don't move having 500+k / person in the bank is life changing. The median bay area house is 635,000$ which becomes affordable while saving money. Dual income with a 1+ Million down payment and you can actually buy a nice place.
In general conversation, "if X" often says a lot about "if not X". "If you're a white male on America, you have entrenched institutional benefits" actually does imply something about non-white/non-males. It implies that non-white/non-males do not have the same entrenched institutional benefits. General conversations do not follow the rules of prepositional logic.
When you repeatedly refer to being single, you imply that it's the better way to save, whether you intend that or not. And when someone asks about it, brushing off the question by pretending they should have applied rigorous logic to the statement is somewhat... let's say silly. Ability to control a spouse's spending and willingness to relocate are legitimate answers that you make weaker with the attempted logical refutation.
Having 500k in the bank also isn't really life changing if your plan is to spend it on a house. With a high income, you could theoretically save for 10ish years and buy a pretty nice home outright. You could also just take a loan out immediately and live in the same home for those ten years, acquiring equity and tax benefits along the way.
Saving to buy outright or mostly outright only makes sense if you are either extremely risk averse or you believe that non-real assets will appreciate much faster than real assets over the medium term. Right now you can get a super jumbo loan at less than 4%. If you want buy a million dollar home and have a million dollars in cash, it's really not a given that you should buy the house in cash. That implies that you believe the stock market will do worse than, say, 3% (reduced due to tax advantages of mortgages and disadvantages of capital gains) for many years.
The glaring exception for dual incomes as I said was you can't control your partners behavior. That's a major caveat and derails the conversation. You go from stuff you can do, to some sort of theoretically ideal couple. In most areas the major savings is being socially acceptable to share a bedroom with someone and being a 1 car family. But, in SF you may already be sharing a bedroom limiting the savings.
Further a 100k income simply can't afford to buy a 900k place. 900k * .06 = 54k/year + taxes + repairs + insurance + utilities. Put a 500k down payment on that and suddenly it's a 400k place and much higher taxes. Now you might be able to swing 900k that with a roommates, but again not having them is a major life change.
> in SF you may already be sharing a bedroom limiting the savings.
I mentioned that in another fork of this thread but was being facetious. Adults do not generally share a bedroom unless they're in a sexual relationship. Sharing a bedroom platonically is not a reasonable thing to expect people to do to save money. Sharing an apartment, yes. A bedroom, no.
> Further a 100k income simply can't afford to buy a 900k place. 900k .06 = 54k/year + taxes + repairs + insurance + utilities. Put a 500k down payment on that and suddenly it's a 400k place and much higher taxes. Now you might be able to swing 900k that with a roommates, but again not having them is a major life change.*
Your numbers don't make sense. First, if you're paying 6% on your mortgage, you're overpaying by a ton. Assuming you even try to get a decent rate, you're looking closer to 3% once you factor in the tax advantages. Second, if you can save 500k in 10 years, you're saving close to 50k/year plus paying for housing. So it's a lie to claim you cannot afford 54k/year in house payments.
Interest is only part of the cost of a loan you also need to pay principle if you don't have a large down payment your interest rate increases. Feel free to calculate a 900k home w/ 0.8% property taxes and insurance. http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-payme...
You do get to deduct interest, but you lose out on the standard deduction you can also play a lot of games with savings. Things like not taking a car loan because use can pay with after tax money saving on the loan and paying less for the car. Financing your own credit card saves money where if your house poor debt is just a fact of life etc. You can also more safely have a high deductible health insurance.
Also, you get interest on savings so your not saving 50k per year to get 500k in 10 years.
You can still do remote work from a cheap location, or stay and have FU money.
Giving up 500k in salary for a chance to make 500k in stock is a terrible bet. Alternatively, only save up 100k in 10 years, go to Vegas and bet it all at slightly negative odds. You can set things up for a 20% chance of getting ~500k which is better odds than many startups while still having more day to day money.
I don't know what housing costs you must be talking about then. $40k/year pre-tax is close to $2648/month after state and federal taxes, and you're saying that with Bay area housing prices, you're not starving? I'm guessing that's also with no school loans or trying to work and pay your way through school, which probably applies to a very small fraction of the population.
Living in a cheap location is also not everyone's dream. It would be life changing for me to retire to Costa Rica, but it would not be a positive change. I live in a pretty expensive city (Seattle) because I like it here.